Bombay High Court
Imtiaz Usman Memon vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Malwani ... on 7 January, 2022
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, G. A. Sanap
1 crwp831.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.831/2021
Imtiaz Usman Memon,
Convict No.C/9825, Aged 25 years,
Occ. Nil, Confined at Central Prison,
Nagpur. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Malwani, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Shweta Wankhede, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. N. Tripathi, A.P.P. for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATED :- 07.01.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: V. M. Deshpande, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By filing this petition, the petitioner is praying for
releasing him on emergency parole. The petitioner was convicted
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Trial
No.65/2014 on 24.10.2017 for an offence punishable under
Sections 307 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and he was
directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
2 crwp831.21.odt
3. The petitioner was released from jail on emergency
parole by this Court (Coram: Z. A. Haq & Avinash G. Gharote,
JJ.), on 04.08.2020 in Writ Petition No.345/2020. It is an
admitted position before this Court that after the petitioner was
released on parole, the same was extended from time to time by
the authority and it has come to an end on 06.11.2021.
4. In the meantime, it appears that the petitioner was
arrested by Malwani Police Station in Crime No. 1203/2021 for an
offence punishable under Sections 380 and 411 of the IPC. It
appears that learned Metropolitan Magistrate 43 rd Court, Borivali,
Mumbai released the petitioner on bail on 06.09.2021. Thereafter,
during the course of extended parole, the petitioner was brought
in the Central Prison by cancelling his extended leave. The said is
being under challenge.
5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
that since learned Metropolitan Magistrate has granted bail, the
earlier parole granted ought not to have been cancelled by the
authority.
3 crwp831.21.odt
6. The order passed by the learned Magistrate releasing
the petitioner on bail is placed on record. The learned
Metropolitan Magistrate released the petitioner on bail because the
property was already seized and hence his custodial presence was
not required.
7. Be that as it may. Grant or refusal of the bail has no
bearing inasmuch as it is condition imposed on the petitioner
while he was released on parole that during parole, he should not
commit any offence. Here the petitioner has committed an offence.
Therefore, in our view, no exception can be taken for the action
taken by the authority.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submitted
mother of the petitioner is extremely ill and therefore, he be
released on parole. It appears that for said reason, the petitioner
has not filed any application before the authority.
9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed
of with a liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application for parole
before the appropriate authority giving detailed reasons as to why
4 crwp831.21.odt
he requires parole. If such an application is filed by the petitioner,
the authority is directed to decide the said application within a
period of ten days from the date of receipt of such an application.
Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
Digitally signed byYOGESH
ARVIND KAHALE
Signing Date:07.01.2022
18:25
